Does God have blood?
Some bible translations render:
Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with His own blood. -- Acts 20:28 (ESV)
However, this is a bad translation.
The ESV adds a footnote that indicate that some manuscripts read "the church of the Lord" which could refer to the Lord Jesus instead. This make more sense in the context of the body of Christ which many have translated to "church".
For example:
Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops, to feed the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own blood. -- Acts 20:28 (ASV)
Another view is:
Pay attention to yourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God that he purchased with the blood of his own [Son]. -- Acts 20:28 (REV)
These translators explain:
“church of God.” Trinitarians use this phrase along with what follows, “blood of his own,” to establish that the verse is referring to God’s own blood, and since this verse is referring to the sacrifice of Jesus, Jesus must be God. There are quite a few problems with that. First, this phrase “church of God” has some significant textual variants; there are some major manuscripts which read, “church of the Lord” (P74, A, C*, D, E). If the text was originally “church of the Lord” then the entire Trinitarian argument would fall apart, because the verse would not be saying that God has blood. Thus, the Trinitarian argument already is on shaky grounds. In the next section, more problems with the Trinitarian argument based on Acts 20:28 will be discussed.
“the blood of his own Son.” This refers to the blood of his own Son, Jesus.a This is a phrase used in conjunction with “church of God” to support Trinitarianism, by interpreting it to mean that God is the subject and he purchased the church with “his own blood.”
The Greek text could be literally translated, “blood of one’s own (son),” (Possessive genitive) or “one’s own blood” (Genitive of Apposition). Either one is a valid translation. Yet, the Trinitarian must translate it, “one’s own blood” or “his own blood,” in order for this verse to support Trinitarianism.
In order to arrive at a proper translation, we must look at how the scriptures define God, and this could help us understand what was likely meant. Do the scriptures define God as having a body and having blood? No, they define God as being invisible and incorruptible (Col. 1:15; 1 Tim. 1:17), yet, Jesus clearly has a body, and Jesus clearly shed his blood (Heb. 13:12; Col. 1:20). Thus, it certainly makes more sense to understand this phrase as, “blood of one’s own Son.” The word “Son” is properly supplied when asking the question: who is God’s own who shed his blood to purchase the Church? Clearly the answer is Jesus throughout the entirety of the New Testament.
So, in order for this verse to teach that Jesus is God, the Trinitarian needs to use one specific manuscript reading for “Church of God,” and one specific translation of “his own blood,” and hold to a completely unique understanding that God has blood, which contradicts the rest of Scripture in which God is incorruptible (1 Tim. 1:17) and is invisible (Col. 1:15). One can see the great weakness in using a verse like this to support the Trinity; it simply has too many translation and manuscript issues to be a reliable verse to build a doctrine upon. Thus, it makes much more sense to simply translate the verse, “blood of his own Son” referring to Jesus’ blood, who we know had a real flesh and blood body (Col. 1:20), unlike God.